AIKS opposes promotion of gene-edited crop varieties
In the letter dated Friday, Andhra Pradesh Ryotu Sangham (AIKS) president G. Eswaraiah and general secretary K.V.V. Prasad said that they were deeply concerned that these developments were being pursued without sufficient consultation with farmers, independent scientific assessment, or transparent public debate. The entry of gene-edited seeds threatens to create new forms of dependency for farmers while offering no proven long-term benefits.
In the past, the AIKS expressed its concerns about Bt cotton and Bt Brinjal. Even though Bt cotton was effective for a few years, later it failed in controlling pests. Lakhs of farmers sustained huge losses. As Seed Bill 2004 was not passed, in the absence of a proper crop insurance scheme, farmers were not compensated resulting in suicidal deaths.
''Enact strict liability laws to hold seed and biotech companies accountable for economic and environmental harm caused by their products. Our bitter experience with Bt cotton should not be forgotten. Farmers must not be turned into passive consumers of corporate-controlled technologies. True agricultural development lies in empowering farmers through self-reliance. We hope the Ministry will heed this call and take steps to protect the rights, livelihoods, and dignity of India's farmers,' they added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Central committee inspects constructions at Bheemili beach
Visakhapatnam: An expert committee constituted by the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change conducted an inspection on Friday at Bheemili beach to assess unauthorised constructions allegedly carried out by Avyaan Realtors, owned by P Neha Reddy and P Rohit Reddy—the daughter and son-in-law of former Rajya Sabha member P Vijaya Sai Reddy. These constructions reportedly violated coastal regulation zone (CRZ) rules. The Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority has filed a case in the Bheemili court against the company for constructing a concrete wall within CRZ limits without prior approval, violating provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Though the GVMC partially demolished the wall up to ground level, underground remnants still remain to be cleared. This inspection follows a public interest litigation (PIL No. 53/2024) filed in the AP High Court by Jana Sena corporator Peethala Murthy Yadav, who raised concerns about the large-scale unauthorised concrete structures built on the beach. The High Court ordered the immediate demolition of the illegal constructions and directed authorities to enforce environmental regulations strictly. The expert committee, comprising scientists from the National Institute of Oceanography, Coastal Zone Management Authority, State Pollution Control Board, and Central environment ministry, inspected the site to evaluate the environmental damage caused by the constructions. The committee also collected detailed information related to the case from Murthy Yadav and is expected to submit its report to the high court. The CRZ regulations, framed under the Environment Protection Act, aim to safeguard coastal ecosystems by restricting constructions within a buffer zone from the high tide line.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC rejects plea on delimitation exercise in AP and Telangana
Vijayawada: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the notification issued for delimitation of constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir without including Andhra Pradesh and Telangana . The apex court observed that the rule of parity does not apply equally to states and union territories, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked as an enforceable right when there is an express constitutional limitation. The SC further noted that the delimitation of constituencies in AP and Telangana can only be taken up based on the data from the first census conducted after 2026. Prof K Purushottam Reddy moved the Supreme Court, contending the non-inclusion of AP and Telangana in the notification issued for the delimitation of assembly and parliament constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir. He contended that, according to section 26 of AP Reorganisation Act, assembly constituencies in the two Telugu states should be increased from 175 and 119 to 225 and 153, respectively. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Rao Ranjit told the apex court that the exclusion of AP and Telangana from the scope of the delimitation exercise, as contemplated in the notification, suffers from the vice of intelligible differentia. The delimitation commission appointed pursuant to the issuance of the notification was the first after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, and the electorate in both AP and Telangana have a legitimate expectation about a similar exercise, which is the constitutional responsibility of the Union govt as per AP Reorganisation Act, he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now The power under the Delimitation Act must be exercised uniformly by the Union govt, and there could be no plausible justification for omitting the two Telugu states from the delimitation exercise, he argued. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general KM Natraj, arguing on behalf of the Union govt, submitted that the petition is devoid of merits as there was an express bar on the delimitation of constituencies in the states governed by Article 170. They argued that the Jammu and Kashmir comes under Article 239A of the Constitution, not Article 170. As states and union territories are governed by different constitutional schemes of arrangements, there can be no claim of parity, they argued. Considering the arguments, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the arguments of the Union govt. Noting that states and union territories are governed by different constitutional principles and there is an express bar on the delimitation of constituencies in states, the bench observed that if the petition is entertained, it will open flood gates with similar demands from other states. The bench also held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and parity cannot be invoked in view of express constitutional provisions and dismissed the petition.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Centre: Import duty on apples 50%, no proposal received for hike in tariff
Shimla: As apple growers from Himachal and other apple-growing states have been clamouring for a hike in the import duty of the fruit for the last few years, Union MoS (commerce and industry) Jitin Prasada informed the Rajya Sabha Friday that the ministry has not received any such proposal to date. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "The import duty on apples is 50% in India," he told the House in response to a question from Himachal MP Harsh Mahajan (BJP) during the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament. Himachal contributes nearly 25% to the country's annual apple production, amounting to about 6.5 lakh metric tonnes, which is valued at approximately Rs 5,000 crore. Himachal BJP spokesperson Chetan Singh Bragta had claimed on July 4 that the Centre had hiked the minimum import price of apples from Rs 50 to Rs 80 per kg. Bragta had said the revised price came into effect following an approval from Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan. However, Prasada informed the Rajya Sabha that to protect the interests of apple farmers, there is a minimum import price (MIP) of Rs 50 per kg for the import of apples in India. The Union minister said in the US, the import duty on apples is 0% for normal trade relations (NTR) countries, which includes India. "In addition to the above, the apples coming from Iran, Turkey, and the US have a landed cost above the minimum import price of Rs 50/kg. The import price of apples from Turkey is Rs 66.16/kg, Iran is Rs 51.62/kg, and that from the US is Rs 82.99/kg during 2024-25 FY," Prasada said. The Union minister added that the govt has implemented a nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) policy with effect from April 1, 2010, for phosphatic and potassic (P&K) fertilisers. Under the policy, a fixed amount of subsidy, decided on an annual or bi-annual basis, is provided on notified P&K fertilisers depending on their nutrient content. Under the NBS scheme, the maximum retail price (MRP) is fixed by fertiliser companies as per market dynamics at a reasonable level, which is monitored by the central govt, he added.
